RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

"LRL" = "LGL"?

I assume you miss keyed "R" as "G".

From: Daniel Rocha

> I posted above, but, here it goes again :)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

Yes! ^_^'"

2016-05-24 21:30 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> "LRL" = "LGL"?
>
> I assume you miss keyed "R" as "G".
>
> From: Daniel Rocha
>

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

My math background, particularly use of proper math terminology, is somewhat 
elementary at times. Recently, I have taken several refresher courses in 
calculus. It's been an interesting experience.

I was not familiar with the term "Laplace–Runge–Lenz vectors". I may have 
shorthanded the term, for my own elementary needs to "Velocity Vectors" as 
pertaining to planetary orbits. "Velocity Vectors" is easier for me to 
remember. ;-) This is a good wikipedia link. I'm pretty sure I will be going 
through it with a fine tooth comb. The information here is VERY relevant to 
what I'm working on. I've already started comparing notes. This is going to 
take a while.

Thanks for the Link Daniel.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com 

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

I have other projects! But if I have to suggest anything is to try to find
Kepler's law using LGL vectors in the simplest way.

2016-05-24 19:08 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

>
> You're working on a third way?
>

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

What does "LGL" stand for?

>From Daniel:

> I have other projects! But if I have to suggest anything is to try to 
> find Kepler's law using LGL vectors in the simplest way.

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

I posted above, but, here it goes again :)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits

2016-05-24 20:37 GMT-03:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> What does "LGL" stand for?
>

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial 
ventilation would be fatal""


Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?Is your source 
Dewey Weaver?I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have.



As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where 
the poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get 
academia and the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud.   
It is not clear to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant 
didn't work or that that they can't duplicate the results.

RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Mon 5/23 Jones said [snip] The theory that appeals to me the most is not 
Holmlid's but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a dielectric 
support for UDH, which is always paired.[/snip] which also fits nicely with 
lack of hydrinos available for study and Mill's reliance on hydrides.

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist. There 
is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me the most 
is not Holmlid's but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a 
dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of pairs 
is possible with no electrons - instead the charge is balanced by deflated 
electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR site. There 
is no "Rydberg matter" per se, but this dense state can be labeled as IRH or 
inverted Rydberg hydrogen.

From: Stephen Cooke

Oops i meant H(0) of course
Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen:

Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or is 
a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it?

Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or 
would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band?

If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would they 
look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of protons, 
would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some offset due 
to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and different spin state 
of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to dynamics of the proton 
pair?

Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it 
sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require 
interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Alain Sepeda]

what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. Question is if
they could not replicate anything, or just replicate something usable.

Fraud is not even a problem if it works for IH.
Doubt on methodology is also a problem with a test.
Dubious behavior is also a possible problem, increasing question on methods.

but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH
labs.

2016-05-24 14:30 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield :

> Jed,
>
> ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial
> ventilation would be fatal""
>
> Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?  Is your source
> Dewey Weaver?  I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have.
>
>
> As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the
> poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and
> the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud.   It is not clear
> to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant didn't work or that
> that they can't duplicate the results.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

[Stephen Cooke]

If I understand right, this idea from Lawandy seems compatible with some recent 
posts by Ecco on Quantum Heat so I think you may have something there. It will 
be interesting to see where it goes.


> On 23 May 2016, at 19:13, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist. There 
> is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me the 
> most is not Holmlid’s but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a 
> dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of pairs 
> is possible with no electrons – instead the charge is balanced by deflated 
> electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR site. 
> There is no “Rydberg matter” per se, but this dense state can be labeled as 
> IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen.
>  
> From: Stephen Cooke
>  
> Oops i meant H(0) of course
> 
> Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen:
>  
> Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or 
> is a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it?
>  
> Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or 
> would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band?
>  
> If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would 
> they look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of 
> protons, would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some 
> offset due to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and 
> different spin state of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to 
> dynamics of the proton pair?
>  
> Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it 
> sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require 
> interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?
>  
>  

[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking

[Frank Znidarsic]

I used to, in the 70's, work with battery powered mining equipment.  You could 
tell when the battery
was dying.  The equipment slowed down and it was time to charge it up.  A 
ruined lead acid cell appears like an
open circuit.


I have found out, through the school of hard knocks, that lithium ion does not 
work that way.
It will respond like a fresh battery during a time when the battery is getting 
ruined.  A ruined cell appears
like a short circuit.




The sad part about this is that the cell voltage only goes low under full load. 
 That's just when you need
the battery the most.  You put it under full load to get out of the way.  I 
would not want my a car to brick on
an entry ramp to an expressway.  




A nice picture of the MINI is below.  The ICE has improved in efficiency so 
much that the hi-bread may be dead.
The roll over bars pop up during a roll over.  I hope never to test this option.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/images/mini.jpg




Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks for pointing me towards these theories Jones Beene I will try to take a 
look at them.

I have a few other questions about H(0) and D(0) to add to my earlier list if I 
may:

If the two nuclei are separated by 2.3 pm I suppose the are rotating about 
their center of mass. 

Would those nuclei generate Bremsstrahlung radiation or would they be in some 
kind of non radiating stable electron like orbitals, around the center of mass 
(i.e. Some kind of proton or nuclei orbitals rather than electron orbitals)?

Would the electron orbitals be perturbed by the dynamics of the paired nuclei?. 
A kind of 2.1 body problem. If so would this lead to photon radiation from the 
dynamic impacts on the electron orbitals?

Could the nuclei orbitals or orbits be comparable in magnitude in size to the 
slow neutron cross sections for those nuclei?

Is there something about the charge distribution of the pair of electrons in an 
S orbital with angular momentum 0, that allows the protons to orbit in a pair 
inside this orbitals?

Or do the protons or nuclei themselves form a kind of couper pair in there 
orbit state?

Could one nucleus influence the weak force interactions in the other nucleus 
when in these close configurations? I.e. Could one nucleus stimulate electron 
capture in the paired nucleus? And if so could the resulting neutron be 
captured?

What would be the effect on H(0) or D(0) if one of the electrons is excited to 
a higher orbital state such as a P1 orbital?

I guess if the electrons are in conduction bands half of these questions are 
irrelevant. Probably too many questions too with no answers so I apologize 
about that. I'm just curious if QM orbital modeling has explored any of these 
concepts.



> On 23 May 2016, at 19:13, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist. There 
> is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me the 
> most is not Holmlid’s but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must be a 
> dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of pairs 
> is possible with no electrons – instead the charge is balanced by deflated 
> electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR site. 
> There is no “Rydberg matter” per se, but this dense state can be labeled as 
> IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen.
>  
> From: Stephen Cooke
>  
> Oops i meant H(0) of course
> 
> Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen:
>  
> Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or 
> is a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it?
>  
> Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or 
> would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band?
>  
> If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would 
> they look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of 
> protons, would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some 
> offset due to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and 
> different spin state of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to 
> dynamics of the proton pair?
>  
> Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it 
> sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require 
> interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?
>  
>  

[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking

[Frank Znidarsic]

I built a lithium ion powered bicycle to test out the technology.  It has a 48 
volt 10 AH LI-ion battery
 with a 2 KW external drive.  The lower rated internal drive smoked within a 
few days.


I used a Magic Pie motor.  The motor broke free of its torque arm
and spun free on its shaft a number of times.  This ripped the wires out of the 
motor and blew
out the hall effect position sensing transistors.  I spent many hours fixing 
this problem.  I bought 3 hub
motors before this was all done.  They are less than $200.


My most recent modification was to weld the shaft on the torque arm.  That 
looks good so far.  They are 
both hardened steel parts and the weld could snap.  I told the welder to get it 
hot and put on a lot of metal.


I was crossing the road with the bike going for a space in the traffic.  I gave 
it the full
throttle.  It should have made it across with room to spare.  The battery 
management
system cut of the supply power and the bike bricked.  I had to peddle it very 
hard
against the load of the motor to get out of the way.  The traffic did not slow 
down for me one bit.
A truck was coming fast.


The Battery Management System senses a low voltage on one of the cells and cuts 
of the power pack to save
the battery.  Of course that bricks the bike and risks me.  I jumped out the 
shutoff transistor. 
I would watch when the battery manually and limit its use this way.  There was 
no more bricking.


One year later the battery is ruined.  Four of the cells no longer hold any 
charge.  Several others 
hold only a volt.  They should hold 3.5 volts.  The cells appear to be
internally shorted out.  It's $500 for a new battery.  That's a bit steep and 
the bike may just
sit in the shed forever.  I would never want an electric car.


I purchased anther toy in my older age; a MIDI Cooper convertible.  I got it 
used for a good price.  I am 6 ft 4 in and fit nicety in it.
It has a gasoline engine that used very little gasoline and is doing just fine. 
 ICE forever!






Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Alain Sepeda.
"but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH 
labs."


If either works it is enough.  Anyway it looks like the old E-Cat is 
passe and the QuarkX is the future.
As is too obvious no one knows enough to do more than speculate. Roll on 
June and more data.


Adrian

[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking

[a.ashfield]

Frank,
  I assume you mean MINI (not midi)   I used to drive my mother's 
regular mini as a young man.  It went around corners like it was on 
rails.  Some years ago I laid a 240 3ph cable to the front of the house 
while doing some mods, expecting to get an electric car.  We have just 
got a Hyundai Tucson having calculated you still don't get the extra 
cost back from an electric vehicle.   I have thought the IPCC got the 
effect of CO2 wrong for many years now.


Maybe you will be able to resurrect your electric bike with 20 E-Cat 
QuarkXs in the the future ;-)

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Lennart:

> Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to 
> verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
> You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk
Starting around 0:40 to 1:17

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Steven,
I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
Fun - did not see the connection though.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:13 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Lennart:
>
> > Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to
> > verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
> > You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk
> Starting around 0:40 to 1:17
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>
>

[Vo]:Fwd: Lithium ION bricking

[Frank Znidarsic]

The cold fusion book is still selling within the top 100 of its class.  That's 
were it has been for a long time.
Maybe I am have an impact and then again maybe not.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/digital-text/159789011?ie=UTF8_=pd_zg_hrsr_kstore_1_6_last#3












Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Lithium ION bricking

[Frank Znidarsic]

a.ashfield


Thanks, yes it is a MINI and I love it.  I had a Corvair Air convertible when I 
was 16.
I loved it.  I ran as well as the electric bike, always broke down.  In a quest 
to restore my
youth I bought another convertible at 62.  It's working with that.


The midi (not MINI) is below and not selling well.  I sold two.  The cold 
fusion books are still sell several a mouth.


http://www.amazon.com/Znidarsic-Science-Books-MIDI-Staff/dp/B0189W31BK/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps=UTF8=1464103292=1-2-catcorr=%22znidarsic+science+books%22




Good luck with your electric car.  Get ready to fork out $10,000 every so for 
for a new battery pack.
Get ready to run for it when it bricks.






Frank Znidarsic

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Harry,

I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further 
temptation to commit commentary.

I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've 
learned about my own R endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to manifest 
than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be delays, but not 
this much. The experience has given me a greater appreciation for just how long 
it's taking the fractious CF community to get their chickens lined up. Crossing 
the road is filled with risks. It's easy to get run over.

Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested in 
further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might be able 
to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible chunks so that 
I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there.

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com





From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

Harry,

Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and with the 
rest of the Vort Collective.

Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. Incredibly 
elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to build complicated 
animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my critique! (Don't worry. 
I'm still extremely impressed.)

I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various points. 
There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as you try to 
get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with what you are 
trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better understood and 
appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could break the steps 
down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend adding some 
descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something important has 
or is about to happen.

One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related work is 
that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by the fact 
that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice observer, the person 
will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not their fault. It's just too 
much data for a novice to digest in one meal. When they get lost, they give up. 
We forget that in our own heads what now looks so utterly clear and simple to 
us still looks utterly confusing to a novice. We have spent weeks and months 
working out all the geometry in our own brain. The information has essentially 
become hardwired in our understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. 
Alas, a new observer has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into 
their own wetwiring. 

I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to 
understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It 
would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very 
different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research into 
orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can be 
discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do is add 
a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One apparent 
difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear to be more 
simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that Kepler revealed in 
his three famous laws. I think I have found that simplicity too. Two of the 
three additional laws (Laws 4 & 5) are actually already known to scholars. But 
their significance is not understood (or perceived) as additional Kepler laws. 
I want to rectify that. The third new law (law 6) is, to the best of my 
knowledge, unknown to the public domain. It shows how to use the empty foci to 
construct velocity measurements.

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com


From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

Steven, 

I know that in the past you have wondered if the second focus of an ellipse 
could have any role to play in the determination of orbits, since it plays no 
role in Kepler laws or in Newton's derivation of Kepler laws.  Well a few years 
ago, I invented a geometrical method in which the second focus of an ellipse is 
first located prior to determining the shape and size of an orbit. Information 
about speed and escape velocity is first mapped to positions on the 
circumference of a circle and this point is used to projectively locate the 
second focus (Fe) relative to the planet which is located at the first focus 
(Fp). Once the second focus is located the shape of orbit can be computed. 
However, my computations consist 

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Whoops, I sent that before I was finished.

I wanted to add that a mathematician named Gary Rubinstein did a nice
series of videos explaining Feynman's geometrical derivation of Kepler's
laws.
No calculus is used because the argument is strictly geometrical. Here is
the first of eight videos in the series. Each one is about 10 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObVDk7WPm9Y

Anyway, I will let you resume your house-work.

Harry

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:08 PM, H LV  wrote:

> Steven,
>
> Your criticisms are quite justified. The problem is I don't know how to
> pause a gif animation. At this time I didn't expect to leave more than an
> "impression" so I apologize if the lack of detail frustrated you.
>
> Are you familiar with a book called Feynman's Lost Lectures? It is based
> on Feynman's lecture notes, where Feynman recontructs Newton's
> *geometrical* derivation of Kelper's laws. He reconstructs it up to a
> point, but then he admits that he lacks the geometrical knowledge to follow
> Newton's argument to the end so he employs a modern trick using velocity
> vectors to simplify the argument.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Harry,
>>
>> I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further
>> temptation to commit commentary.
>>
>> I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've
>> learned about my own R endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to
>> manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be
>> delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater
>> appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to
>> get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's
>> easy to get run over.
>>
>> Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested
>> in further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might
>> be able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible
>> chunks so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> orionworks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
>>
>> Harry,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and
>> with the rest of the Vort Collective.
>>
>> Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct.
>> Incredibly elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to
>> build complicated animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my
>> critique! (Don't worry. I'm still extremely impressed.)
>>
>> I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various
>> points. There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as
>> you try to get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with
>> what you are trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better
>> understood and appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could
>> break the steps down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend
>> adding some descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something
>> important has or is about to happen.
>>
>> One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related
>> work is that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by
>> the fact that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice
>> observer, the person will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not
>> their fault. It's just too much data for a novice to digest in one meal.
>> When they get lost, they give up. We forget that in our own heads what now
>> looks so utterly clear and simple to us still looks utterly confusing to a
>> novice. We have spent weeks and months working out all the geometry in our
>> own brain. The information has essentially become hardwired in our
>> understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. Alas, a new observer
>> has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into their own
>> wetwiring.
>>
>> I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to
>> understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It
>> would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very
>> different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research
>> into orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can
>> be discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do
>> is add a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One
>> apparent difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear
>> to be more simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that

[Vo]:Langmuir/Hydrogen

[Chris Zell]

This source makes an interesting claim:

http://www.chavascience.com/index.php/en/hydrogen/langmuir-excess-energy-from-hydrogen

That Langmuir was dissuaded from publishing anything that suggested a gain in 
regard to atomic hydrogen.  If true, it confirms my feelings about 'heresy' and 
'excommunication' poisoning the pursuit of science.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[H LV]

Here is another baseball clip, but this one is from the Bad News Bears
(1976)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWN1xWdKbHY

Harry

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball
>
> Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
> after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :
>
>> Steven,
>> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
>> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>>
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +1 916 436 1899
>>
>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>>
>>
>>

[Vo]:Time to see LENR as a Whole

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-24-2016-to-see-lenr-field-as-whole.html

I consider modesty and, especially humility as semi-qualities and therefore
now I dare to say that this subject is important indeed
When the time of this idea will come...
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Steven,

Your criticisms are quite justified. The problem is I don't know how to
pause a gif animation. At this time I didn't expect to leave more than an
"impression" so I apologize if the lack of detail frustrated you.

Are you familiar with a book called Feynman's Lost Lectures? It is based on
Feynman's lecture notes, where Feynman recontructs Newton's *geometrical*
derivation of Kelper's laws. He reconstructs it up to a point, but then he
admits that he lacks the geometrical knowledge to follow Newton's argument
to the end so he employs a modern trick using velocity vectors to simplify
the argument.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Harry,
>
> I need to remove myself from Vortex again in order to prevent further
> temptation to commit commentary.
>
> I'll return after I have another progress report to make. One thing I've
> learned about my own R endeavors is that it's taking a LOT longer to
> manifest than what I had originally anticipated. I knew there would be
> delays, but not this much. The experience has given me a greater
> appreciation for just how long it's taking the fractious CF community to
> get their chickens lined up. Crossing the road is filled with risks. It's
> easy to get run over.
>
> Please feel free to contact me privately via Email if you're interested in
> further correspondence. Speaking selfishly for myself, I hope you might be
> able to parse your interesting GIF animation down to more digestible chunks
> so that I can better follow the steps. There is a lot going on there.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:28 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes
>
> Harry,
>
> Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and
> with the rest of the Vort Collective.
>
> Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. Incredibly
> elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to build
> complicated animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my
> critique! (Don't worry. I'm still extremely impressed.)
>
> I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various
> points. There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as
> you try to get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with
> what you are trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better
> understood and appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could
> break the steps down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend
> adding some descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something
> important has or is about to happen.
>
> One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related work
> is that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by the
> fact that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice observer,
> the person will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not their fault.
> It's just too much data for a novice to digest in one meal. When they get
> lost, they give up. We forget that in our own heads what now looks so
> utterly clear and simple to us still looks utterly confusing to a novice.
> We have spent weeks and months working out all the geometry in our own
> brain. The information has essentially become hardwired in our
> understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. Alas, a new observer
> has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into their own
> wetwiring.
>
> I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to
> understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It
> would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very
> different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research
> into orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can
> be discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do
> is add a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One
> apparent difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear
> to be more simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that
> Kepler revealed in his three famous laws. I think I have found that
> simplicity too. Two of the three additional laws (Laws 4 & 5) are actually
> already known to scholars. But their significance is not understood (or
> perceived) as additional Kepler laws. I want to rectify that. The third new
> law (law 6) is, to the best of my knowledge, unknown to the public domain.
> It shows how to use the empty foci to construct velocity measurements.
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>
>
> From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com]
> 

[Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Various threads have sprung up making it difficult to follow the Rossi 
story.I propose we start with part 1 and add more as it gets too long.


Here is the best description of details of the 1 MW plant from Mats Lewan

https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/

 * All the instruments for measurements were installed, under
   observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for
   Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with
   Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All
   communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in
   copy.
 * The flow meter was mounted according to all standard requirements,
   for example at the lowest point in the system.
 * The MW plant was placed on blocks, 33 cm above the ground, to make
   sure that leaking water or any hidden connections would become visible.
 * The two IH representatives present at the test were Barry West and
   Fulvio Fabiani (who worked for Rossi from January 2012 until August
   2013, when the MW plant was delivered to IH in North Carolina, after
   which he was paid by IH as an expert who would make the technology
   transition from Rossi to IH easier). West and Fabiani reported to JT
   Vaughn every day on the phone.
 * Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the
   same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during
   the test.
 * During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and
   cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s
   counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the
   license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.
 * The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy
   from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861,
   46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000
   square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600.
 * The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the
   process was running 24/7.
 * The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat
   exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot
   air through the roof.
 * The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop,
   and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load
   in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy
   corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about
   60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for
   calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV
   accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal
   power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however,
   derives from the water being evaporated when boiling).
 * He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be
   subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be
   conservative. The ERV accepted.
 * IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test,
   an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where
   the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that
   this had no importance.
 * The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.
 * At the end of the test, the ERV dismounted all the instruments by
   himself, in the presence of Rossi and IH, packed them and brought
   everything to DHL for transportation to the instrument manufacturers
   who would recalibrate the instruments and certify that they were not
   manipulated.
 * After the test, IH wanted to remove the MW plant from the premises
   in Florida, but Rossi would not accept until the remaining $89M were
   paid according to the license agreement. Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys
   then agreed that both parties should lock the plant with their own
   padlocks (as opposed to the claim by Dewey Weaver—a person
   apparently connected to IH, but yet not clear in what way—that ‘IH
   decided to padlock the 1MW container after observing and documenting
   many disappointing actions and facts’).

Mats also adds Rossi and his Swedish partner Hydrofusion have made an 
offer $3 – 5 million to buy a 10,000 sq.ft factory there, where Rossi 
says he intends manufacture 500,000 QuarkX reactors per year.Difficult 
to see why Rossi would spend this kind of money if the E-Cat didn’t work.


Mats says he has “been in contact with people with insight into the MW 
report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the 
lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for 
IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced would be to accuse 
Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. 
Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large 
mistakes, .”


IH have made a rather vague statement about not being able to duplicate 
Rossi’s results.Jed claims he has data that shows the 1 MW plant had a 
COP = 1 and 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Daniel Rocha]

It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball

Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.



2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :

> Steven,
> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

Newton's derivation of the force of gravity from Kepler's law of ellipsis
is explained nicely in this series of lectures:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB3D1F0F64E98FDBF

Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

Hmm! Gary also derived using the original method, so it is good to see both
approaches and how algebra makes life so much easier than just using
geometric algebra. In Newton's time, though, geometric algebra was widely
teach, more so than algebra, including theorems about ellipsis which are
not as well known nowadays.

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

I'm sorry, orbits. You could try to find the law using it.

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[Daniel Rocha]

There is also the LRL vector, which can be used to derive Kepler's law in 3
lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%E2%80%93Runge%E2%80%93Lenz_vector#Derivation_of_the_Kepler_orbits

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Yes, it is possible to begin with kepler's laws and the law of inertia and
derive the force law of gravity or to begin with the force law of gravity
and the law of inertia and derive Kepler's laws.

I am working on third way.

Harry

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Newton's derivation of the force of gravity from Kepler's law of ellipsis
> is explained nicely in this series of lectures:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB3D1F0F64E98FDBF
>
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Woah! I didn't expect to see so much commentary on this particular thread.  I 
had to re-subscribe a while longer.

 

Harry, the link you supplied on Feynman's Lost Lecture on Motions around the 
Sun did the trick for me. I finally get what your animated GIF was trying to 
tell me. I like what Feynman did with the empty foci. That is cool! Thanks!

 

It will be interesting to see if I can find any linkages with what Feynman did 
and what I'm trying to work out with my own velocity vector work.

 

You're working on a third way?

 

Daniel, thank you very much for sharing the links to Gary Rubenstien's lectures 
on Newton's Principia Explained. Over the years I have actually generated a lot 
of animated computer code that essentially exploit Newton's principals. Doing 
do animates planetary orbits very nicely. It's fun to do. Indeed, I proved to 
myself that the area of each plotted triangle do equal each other. As long as 
one keeps individual iterations reasonably small the accuracy can turn out to 
be astonishing, several orders of magnitude accurate.

 

Thanks for giving me another excuse to delay doing my house-work.

 

Regards,

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks

http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Daniel that did not make it clear to me.
I can take critic. I just think throwing rocks when you sit in a glasshouse
is less than smart.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball
>
> Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
> after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :
>
>> Steven,
>> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
>> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>>
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +1 916 436 1899
>>
>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>>
>>
>>